Subject: Re: GASP!!!

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:40:37 -0800

Peter,

This is repetitively to my last email, but I want to emphasize the points.

> You have been offered a solution that works
> and that is claimed to be usable NO MATTER WHAT bridging
> strategy is chosen by P1394.1. Perhaps there should be more discussion on
the
> adequacy (or not) ofthis assertion?

The GASP proposal of course does not address MCAP or the signature field,
but
those are minor issues. The real issue is where does the GASP header get
defined and when. If the bridging WG wants to abdicate control of the GASP
header to the IP/1394, then we can talk about that. However, that would not
be the best thing for the GASP header, IP/1394 WG, or the bridging WG.
The bridging WG should define the GASP header and how it relates to IP/1394
and whatever other protocols may be using it.

My vote against GASP in the poll was not saying GASP is a bad idea. I was
saying
GASP belongs to the bridging WG not the IP/1394 WG.

-myron